Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!wex
From: wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: reply to ** FRODO ** from laura
Message-ID: <948@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Aug-83 11:29:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.948
Posted: Thu Aug 18 11:29:08 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Aug-83 21:43:29 EDT
References: <1010@rlgvax.UUCP> dciem.289
Lines: 15

Martin Taylor has brought to mind an interesting point:

Laura, do you know of any hospitals or doctors' offices where smoking is
allowed?  I know that on the east coast of the US, it's unheard of.  Many
of them have signs like "No Smoking -- Air in use," indicating that their
concern is not for the smoker but for the ambient air.  

It seems to me that this is a pretty powerful argument in favor of the
danger of ambient smoke.  Remember that hospitals and doctors have the
patients' interests as their number one concern (for monetary reasons, if
no other).  If they have been convinced that ambient smoke is hazardous,'
why do you remain skeptical?

--Alan Wexelblat
decvax!ittvax!wex